Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1072 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of input tax credit - Fictitious dealers - Bogus supplier - protective assessment under Section 38[5] of the Act - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The Enforcement Officer has submitted a report to the Assessing Authority that M/s. Master Trading Company did not exist in the registered address. On further enquiry from the owner/landlord of the building, it was found that the said place was not rented to M/s. Masters Trading Company. Further, the Enforcement Officer has visited the business premises as well as the residential address declared and found that no such dealer existed in the registered place of business and in the residential address shown in the VAT-1 application for registration, for the last two years. In Salem Steel Trading Company supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the claim of input tax credit cannot be withheld for the reason that the selling dealers have not paid tax to the Department when all other documentary evidence are in favour of the dealer and when goods have even moved against ‘e’-sugams. The case on hand does not satisfy the conditions of documentary evidence proved in favour of the dealer and goods having been moved against ‘e’-sugams. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT FINANCE DEPARTMENT BANGALORE VERSUS SRI RAJESH JAIN PARTNER M/S SALEM STEEL TRADING COM [2016 (12) TMI 1869 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as well as BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] were considered by the Tribunal along with the judgments of M/s. Pack Well Industries supra and M/s. Microqual Techno Private Limited, Bangalore supra, having analyzed the material facts vis-à-vis the Rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court the judgments, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeals filed by the assessee allowing the Cross Appeals filed by the Revenue. The revision petition stands dismissed.
|